The same thing that stops people from lobbing rocks through your windows or hammering your head walking down a street.
Everyone is always a few seconds away from having access to terrible crimes.
The mere introduction of new forms of crime does not necessarily lead to an increase in criminality. Nor does reactive policies to specific criminal narratives necessarily reduce it.
In other words, it's going to happen, just like every other crime already does. Existing infrastructures of human society can easily facilitate this new form of misconduct.
I think having to rob a human is a significant barrier, that would be eliminated. A human is not going to stop as easily, can drive evasively, is a potential witness, can call the police almost immediately, etc. Bringing an automated truck to a stop would be comparatively simple. Many criminals are not that smart - if you lower accessibility barriers to high-reward crimes you will see more of them.
I believe accessibility may increase the frequency someone attempts a crime but not the number of people who will engage in it.
Think about grocery stores ... many leave items outside the store. You're expected to inconveniently walk in and pay for it.
Yet do you see people rampantly ripping off those potted plants or cantaloupes? Although that crime is highly accessible it doesn't happen.
Now if we were to leave cigarettes out there, of course it would disappear. But the question here is whether there would be more thieves or just more thievery from the same individuals?[1]
The theory is that certain people have relationship dynamics to society which in their mind, justifies these actions. This theory supports looting grocery stores during some catastrophic natural disaster. Under this theory, if you can change the dynamics by which someone identifies with society, you'd see fewer issues.
But this is mere speculation. Is there any literature on this?
----
1. In the lens of this theory, one may claim looting cigarettes is part of their terrible nicotine addiction. This unfortunate narrative constitutes an (unjustifiable) reason to steal the item. The idea "I'm a screw up so this is the role I play in society" is a very Zimbardo-prison way of looking at things - but I think it's unfortunately true.
An autonomous vehicle is an even better witness, even if it only has the sensors it needs for driving, and can also call for help immediately when it stops due to a person on the highway.
Everyone is always a few seconds away from having access to terrible crimes.
The mere introduction of new forms of crime does not necessarily lead to an increase in criminality. Nor does reactive policies to specific criminal narratives necessarily reduce it.
In other words, it's going to happen, just like every other crime already does. Existing infrastructures of human society can easily facilitate this new form of misconduct.